Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Democrats Businesses Government Microsoft United States Apple News Hardware Technology

Clinton Campaign Considered Bill Gates, Tim Cook For Vice President (theverge.com) 171

Posted by BeauHD from the presidential-candidates dept.
WikiLeaks has been releasing thousands of emails over the past couple of weeks belonging to Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. One of the more interesting tidbits revealed from the email dump was the list of potential running mates considered by Clinton's campaign. The Verge reports: Clinton's vice presidential candidates, while not altogether surprising, include some vaguely interesting choices like Bill and Melinda Gates, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and General Motors CEO Mary Barra. In the mail, Podesta says he has organized the list into "rough food groups," one of which includes all the people mentioned above. Xerox CEO Ursula Burns and Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz are also in this "food group," along with Michael Bloomberg. With just under 40 names on the list, it's not immediately obvious how close any of these people came to actually being asked to take on the role (Tim Kaine is on the list).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Clinton Campaign Considered Bill Gates, Tim Cook For Vice President More

Clinton Campaign Considered Bill Gates, Tim Cook For Vice President

Comments Filter:

  • Why go for fluff instead of meat? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @03:14PM (#53102969) Journal

    Everyone else is covering that story to death. The "food groups" the nominees are in are their race, gender & wealth if you're wondering. Sanders is their very last choice, all by himself. So why not release this story instead, which almost nobody is covering right now?

    https://slashdot.org/submissio... [slashdot.org]

    • Everyone else is covering that story to death. The "food groups" the nominees are in are their race, gender & wealth if you're wondering. Sanders is their very last choice, all by himself. So why not release this story instead, which almost nobody is covering right now?

      https://slashdot.org/submissio... [slashdot.org]

      An excellent choice, monseur.

      Might I also recommend https://slashdot.org/submissio... [slashdot.org]

      or perhaps https://twitter.com/wikileaks/... [twitter.com]

      • Re:Some more nominations (Score:5, Informative)

        by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @03:32PM (#53103137) Journal

        There's actually a much less thoroughly linked or explained version of the story that beat mine. I wonder which one they'll post, if any? I guess I should've quoted the full story, though so it doesn't get burred.

        Democrat Operatives Caused Violence at Trump Rallies, Framed Sanders Supporters

        A new video has come out detailing how Democratic operatives created violence at Trump rallies. You may remember that they then framed Sanders supporters for those protests. This video is notable because one of the operatives, Zulema Rodriguez, can be identified in videos of the Arizona protests at 17:35 in this independent video as well as at 10:30 in the first video link. Furthermore, you look at the FEC records of disbursements to her and see that she was paid by MoveOn.org. Finally, this again can be corroborated with the Wikileaks dump, specifically this email. For those too lazy to browse all the links, you can see Zulema's appearance in both videos in this image and note that it's the same person down to the tiny mole on her chest.

        Sources:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] - Confession caught on video for Zulema and others.
        http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/san... [msnbc.com] - Old news report showing the 'split' between real & fake Sanders supporters.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] - Old video showing this lady at the AZ protests (and lying, etc.)
        https://beta.fec.gov/data/disb... [fec.gov] - FED disbursement data showing her payments from MoveOn.org
        https://wikileaks.org/podesta-... [wikileaks.org] - Wikileaks email regarding the strategy they were using.
        https://i.sli.mg/dNBRek.png [i.sli.mg] - A handy image to help you compare her appearance in the confession & the AZ protest videos. Note the same mole on her chest.

        • Hey, you're not allowed to confirm Trump's message that the election is rigged with objective evidence that will send multiple people to prison! It can't be true if the legacy media doesn't dare to report on it!

        • I wonder which one they'll post, if any?

          Hopefully none of them, they aren't really related to tech. We need to keep the focus on the tech angle of things.
          I would have liked to see a story that talks about the vulnerabilities in Trump's email server, apparently they're serious.

    • Here's the full menu (Score:5, Informative)

      by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @03:25PM (#53103077) Journal

      I'll spare you all a click because there's nothing to see here unless you're interested in their "food groups" and which they thought they needed. Here's the full list of VP ideas put forth listed by the category they all appear to fit into (which is not, in fact, listed in the email, just to be clear about that):

      Hispanic Men
      Rep. Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Secretary of Labor Tom Perez and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar.

      Women
      Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sen. Claire McKaskill, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

      White Men
      Sen. Michael Bennet, Sen. Sherrod Brown, Sen. Martin Heinrich, Sen. Tim Kaine, Gov. Terry McAuliffe, Sen. Chris Murphy and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

      Black Men
      Columbia, S.C., Mayor Stephen Benjamin, Sen. Cory Booker, Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, former Attorney General Eric Holder, former Gov. Deval Patrick, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx.

      Military Leaders
      Gen. John Allen, Adm. William McCraven and Adm. Michael Mullen

      Rich Businesspeople
      GM CEO Mary Barra, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Xerox CEO Ursula Burns, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, philanthropist Melinda Gates, Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent, Rockefeller Foundation President Judith Rodin and Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz

      Other
      Sen. Bernie Sanders

      • Interesting, but not suprising. Identity politics (Score:5, Insightful)

        by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @04:20PM (#53103533) Journal

        I'm not *suprised* the Dems lumped candidates into buckets based solely on race and gender, rather than perhaps QUALIFICATIONS FOR JOB, but I do find it interesting and illustrative.

        Exactly how does one use their genitals to perform the job of vice president? Whether or not a potential candidate has a penis is apparently the #1 most important consideration; does the SIZE of their penis matter?

        I would hope that if someone like Paul Ryan was making the list his categories would be something like:

        Legistlative Experience
        Executive Experience (govt)
        Executive Experience (private sector)
        Foreign Policy Experience

        • I'm not *suprised* the Dems lumped candidates into buckets based solely on race and gender, rather than perhaps QUALIFICATIONS FOR JOB, but I do find it interesting and illustrative

          The concern trolling is adorable but misplaced.

          All this shows is that one guy grouped people based on the obvious political signalling implications of each pick, which is pretty much the main effect of a VP pick in the general election. There's no reason they would have gone forward with an unqualified candidate based solely on gender (such as certain nominees named McCain).

          I would hope that if someone like Paul Ryan was making the list his categories would be something like:

          Legistlative Experience
          Executive Experience (govt)
          Executive Experience (private sector)
          Foreign Policy Experience

          I would hope I get a T-Rex for my birthday. I think I have a better than you.

          Paul Ryan would choose his pick the same way every other n

          • > Romney chose Ryan because Ryan was respected by the Tea Party (which was very dubious of Romney).

            Romney sought to balance what he thought was the important, difference, political positions on the issues of the day.

            > Trump chose Pence to reassure the GOP that Trump would be under adult supervision.

            Trump sought to balance on what he thought was the important difference - temperment and government experience.

            Clinton sought to balance what she thinks is important - gentals.

        • It doesnt. Those are obviously candidates that would target specific demographics. VP doesnt have to go after women votes (Clinton has that covered), looks like they decided on a VP that would most appeal to white population.

          Isnt it obvious with Bernie being in a category of his own?

        • Are you sure the only difference between men and women is the genitals?

        • I'm not *suprised* the Dems lumped candidates into buckets based solely on race and gender, rather than perhaps QUALIFICATIONS FOR JOB, ...

          The word "qualifications" in your case has a very broad meaning. You need to understand that those categories are set for "strategic" in order to help making decision. Once you understood, then categorized candidates into groups of expecting people to vote can be seen as a "qualification" as well. If you are talking about those who can get jobs done while in the office, then you will never find one in politics because you should know why...

          Also, I highly doubt that Republicant part would differently strateg

          • > Also, I highly doubt that Republicant part would differently strategize their plan.

            We do not have to guess what Republicans *might* do, we *know* what they did.

            On choosing Paul Ryan, Romney sought to balance what he thought was the important, difference, political positions on the issues of the day.

            With Pence, Trump sought to balance on what he thought was the important difference - temperment and government experience.

            Clinton sought to balance what she thinks is important - gentals.

      • The Melinda Gates idea was a bit odd since I'm not sure what she's done of significance other than marry Bill Gates. And I don't think that's a narrative that Hillary Clinton really wanted to introduce to the campaign. I take it as an indication that this was a very preliminary list.

        The number of business people is surprising, I think they were worried that Trump would start coming across as competent and they're need someone richer to undercut the "rich business person knows how to fix economy" narrative.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hey! ( 33014 )

        People who don't believe that VP picks have always been analyzed this way are naive. Lincoln picked Andrew Johnson because Johnson was from a border state (Tennessee) that could go either way. The primary goal of a VP pick is to help you win. Everything else is secondary.

        The VP pick is all about picking up votes from electorate segments you might not otherwise get (Palin/women), or solidifying shaky part of your coalition (Biden/labor and left), or being young when you are old or vice versa (Quayle). Comi

    • Everyone else is covering that story to death. The "food groups" the nominees are in are their race, gender & wealth if you're wondering. Sanders is their very last choice, all by himself. So why not release this story instead, which almost nobody is covering right now?

      https://slashdot.org/submissio... [slashdot.org]

      Because the evidence is junk.

      First the "investigative" video is by James O'Keefe, who is infamous for dishonestly editing and framing videos to create the false appearance of criminal behaviour. And yes, you're allowed to shoot the messenger when the messenger is lying.

      As for the woman Zulema, even if she was a Clinton supporter or even worked some aspect of the Clinton campaign (they must have thousands of paid staffers) that doesn't mean she was part of a Clinton conspiracy to frame Sanders supporters for

      • You mean her lying to the cops while blocking the road and faking being sick? Now look at the other protest she claims credit for. It's one where cops were injured.

      • Attacking the source (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @04:09PM (#53103465) Homepage Journal

        Because the evidence is junk.

        First the "investigative" video is by James O'Keefe, who is infamous for dishonestly editing and framing videos to create the false appearance of criminal behaviour. And yes, you're allowed to shoot the messenger when the messenger is lying.

        As for the woman Zulema, even if she was a Clinton supporter or even worked some aspect of the Clinton campaign (they must have thousands of paid staffers) that doesn't mean she was part of a Clinton conspiracy to frame Sanders supporters for violent protests. People who work in politics sometimes care about politics too, and they're more than capable of attending a protest on their own.

        Oh, and I don't know what she has to do with the violent protests anyway, the video is of her at a peaceful (though disruptive) protest on a highway!

        Huh.

        Scott Adams has a blog post [dilbert.com] on attacking the source, and claims it's almost always a "tell" for being guilty.

        I don't know about those sorts of things, maybe this is the statistically improbably case where a non-guilty person attacks the messenger.

        Then again, you don't cite any sources, show independent reviews of the evidence, or even any rationalization. Just "the evidence is junk".

        Was that on purpose?

        • Huh.

          Scott Adams has a blog post [dilbert.com] on attacking the source, and claims it's almost always a "tell" for being guilty.

          I'd largely agree, with exceptions. I'd also point out it's ironic considering how much of a Trump fan Scott Adams is (ie, Trump's response to the women accusing him of assault).

          I don't know about those sorts of things, maybe this is the statistically improbably case where a non-guilty person attacks the messenger.

          Then again, you don't cite any sources, show independent reviews of the evidence, or even any rationalization. Just "the evidence is junk".

          Was that on purpose?

          I'll cite a source that says James O'Keefe makes videos that are lies after I cite a source that says the sky is blue. Both are extremely well established facts.

          As for further reviews, I'm not going to bother analyzing manufactured evidence.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Alomex ( 148003 )

          Unless the source is the kid who cried wolf. If you've lost your credibility don't expect me to once again spend time discrediting your latest fantasy, regardless of what Scott Adams may or may not choose to conclude from that.

        • Scott Adams has a blog post on attacking the source, and claims it's almost always a "tell" for being guilty.

          So I read more of the link for context and was surprised to see Adams acknowledge that Trump was guilty.

          It doesn't change the validity of disputing the account of an extremely dishonest source like James O'Keefe.

        • Scott Adams has a blog post on attacking the source, and claims it's almost always a "tell" for being guilty.

          Well, despite his "certified genius level IQ" (his words, not mine) the guy's a bit of an idiot.

          There is literally nothing wrong with attacking the source if the source is crap. For example, if someone points to "evidence" on Breitbart, I'm not going to read it, I'm going to point out their source is utter junk so I may as well ignore their point as unsourced. I mean sure, they might have had a corre

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Sun ( 104778 )

          Scott Adams is not an authority. He did say it. It's true (I read it as well). So what [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]?

          Attacking the source on unrelated charges is a sign of believing the charges (not of guilt, because the people doing the attacking are not the people in a position to know). Attacking the source for being unreliable, on the other hand, is completely legitimate.

          Saying "the accuser has been known to repeatedly lie and manufacture evidence in the past" is on the point and relevant.

          Shachar

    • Emails given out of order and context in order to show how corrupt Clinton is.
      So we get some of the vetting process of picking a VP.
      Going against trump it may had been a good idea to consider a democrat successful business person, just to put a stop to the business person knows more than a politician debate. However with trump just being insane it isn't much of an issue so they went with the borrinh not to upstage VP pick.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @05:25PM (#53103985)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs

  • Could be worse... (Score:3)

    by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @03:15PM (#53102983) Journal

    Larry Ellison could have been on that list (shudder!)

  • Quite a step down... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Galaga88 ( 148206 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @03:18PM (#53103029)

    For people like Bill Gates and Tim Cook, vice president would be a very real step down from what they do presently.

    Yes, I'm saying the CEO of Apple and a retired billionaire turned philanthropist have more power than the second highest ranking elected official in the United States. Because the position isn't worth a warm bucket of piss.

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • For Tim Cook, the presidency would be a huge demotion. Today, he runs a company that has tens of millions of satisfied customers.

        -jcr

        The USA has hundreds of millions of satisfied customers too. They may pretend to be angry and upset with their lot, but you don't too many of them moving. Just like teenage kids they bitch and moan about life not being fair, but they come home to a bed and a meal everyday which is better than the alternative.
        If I truly wasn't happy with my lot I'd move somewhere better, in fact that's exactly what I did. And it's what millions of refugees attempt to do every year. Since we don't see this from the US, we ca

    • That reminds me of a quote by Lex Luthor: "You thought I really wanted to become President? This campaign was just a smoke screen! Do you have any idea how much power I'd have to give up to be President?" (quote from memory, may not be entirely accurate)
    • They would not have been chosen as they are both accomplished and could be seen as a better president than hillary. She chose impeachment insurance.

    • This. What any presidential candidate needs is a veep who is inert - someone who won't outshine the candidate and doesn't have strong opinions (especially those that might conflict with said candidate).

      None of the people on the "rich" flavor list could possibly fit that criteria. Someone was having fun daydreaming and actually wrote it down.

    • Not necessarily a step down, but a VP job is very different from a president. A president is an executive leader, while a VP is a cross b/w an executive and legislative leader. The main job of the VP is to be the interface b/w the president and the senate, or the speaker of the house. Which is why a senator is usually the best choice for the role. Even Trump noted that he didn't want another outsider there, but an insider who knew the goings on in congress.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @03:27PM (#53103103)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • She is a black version of Carly Fiorina with a dash of "diversity" -- one who did irreparable damage to a once powerful Fortune 500 company, who has a reputation as a liar, who insisted a stupid acquisition with Affiliated Computer Services was the right thing to do, and who is hated by her employees. My God -- I have absolutely no problem with a black woman, but why *that* black woman?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Careful now. You can't talk like that about Democrats.
      Citing issues and track record is just a smoke screen for racism, because any and all criticism of Democrats is 100% based in racism/sexism/*phobia.

  • Freudian Slip (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    organized the list into "rough food groups," one of which includes all the people mentioned above. Xerox CEO Ursula Burns and Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz are also in this "food group," along with Michael Bloomberg

    Is anyone else disturbed by the apparent ramifications of this? Perhaps those lizard people "conspiracy theories" of have more credence than we were led to believe.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      Perhaps those lizard people "conspiracy theories" of have more credence

      I'd vote for a lizard person over Bill Gates, although I suppose that's not necessarily mutually exclusive.

  • Just because you want someone doesn't mean there's a snowball's chance in hell of them going along with what you'd like.
  • No, musings about possible VP running mates who might have been, in place of the oddly smarmy Kaine ... that's not in the "more interesting" category. The endless parade of internal back-and-forths that reinforce our understanding of the insider-based, corrupt, incestuous affair that is the Hillary Industrial Crime Campaign Power Acquisition Complex ... THAT is the "more interesting" aspect of what's being exposed over the last few weeks. Obviously her breathless supporters across most of the wider media ou

  • Business is not politics. There's little reason why (once you've got over the low bar of being able to put your shoes on) being good at one should make you good at the other.

    War isn't politics either. Arthur Wellesley - brilliant general, repressive asshole prime minister. Grant - OK general, a tad genocidal with the Indians.

  • Unless George Clinton of the Parliament-Funkadelic is picked for VP, I don't think I'll be voting this election.

  • We've already got Clintongate, and if we get into a war with Russia we're all cooked.

  • I'll bet Bill Gates could have set up a secure personal email server...
  • For very long time all presidents were all white men, now we have a black man. We may have a woman for next president. I wonder if future presidents can be someone who is single (not married), someone with different religion than Christian, or with facial hair (I think Teddy Roosevelt was the last with facial hair), or someone that is paraplegic (other than FDR).

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've finally learned what `upward compatible' means. It means we get to keep all our old mistakes." -- Dennie van Tassel

Close